date
newest »


That's not even remotely close to what I'm saying, Larry.
However, as much as I love animals--and I've had dogs, cats (even though I'm allergic to them), horses, turtles, mice and birds--(as well as contributing to numerous wildlife protection funds) I do not consider them "equal" to humans.
Depending on how you define "equal."
Are they deserving of love and protection? Absolutely. Are they "just the same" as people? No. I don't think they are. I don't think referring to an animal as a "pet" or something we "own" does either disrespect or disservice to the animal.


I disagree. I think as writers we can agree that words have power. Words have the power to influence how we perceive and/or think about another. If this wasn’t true there would be no reason to work to ban the “n word”, the “r word,” the “f word,” or even the gay word in context of “oh that’s so gay,” meaning lame. If it can change the way we perceive and treat our animals then yes I’m all for avoiding the word pet and own.
(the fight) that you refer to is not waged by the animals. Can not be waged by animals. It is waged by well-meaning humans.
Good point but often in the fight for equality the battle is started by a group other than the affected. When one group cannot fight for themselves, we must fight for them.
(By the way, I happen to agree with you that a dog or even a fertilized egg is the same as a human). Thanks for the thought provoking post which perked up a rather dull afternoon.

I disagree. I think as writers we can agree that words have power. Words h..."
I agree words have power, Larry. Beyond that, we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm just not a sentimentalist.

I don't actively complain about the use of the word 'adopt' for gaining a pet, but I do wish the practice would end. It's not about disrespecting or mistreating the animal, it's about respecting the permanence of the adoptive family and not equating adopted children to pets.


I don't actively ..."
Suzanne, I hadn't even thought about the "adoption" angle. Good point.

Thank you, Aniko.
I don't know why this issue bothers me so much because I can usually pretty much see both sides. And I DO love animals. I've risked my life for my animals--and not just once either.
But the more I think about it, the crazier it makes me. If we were to take the animals-are-equal argument to its logical conclusion, not only would all humans need to stop eating meat (okay, fair enough) but we would have to insist that the animal citizens stop eating each other, right? I mean, we interfere with other sovereign countries, so of course we would have to interfere with--
No, I just have to let this go. It will make me nuts.
I understand the battle for equality, I do. As a gay man, as a black man, all I do is fight for equality. But I do not think that my right to be treated fairly, humanely, equally, is trivialized by women’s battle for equal pay or control of their own bodies. We should all be entitled to equality. Fighting for equality for all can only enhance each of our lives once that equality is achieved.